I don't dispute the fact that it is coherent, but it is serving the interest of big corporations. Could you explain why do you think it doesn't?
> Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.
Big corporations shouldn't be treated the same way as individual users, as this is facilitating exploitation. Maybe indeed in the beginnings of FSF this was not thought about, but when big corporations realised this is benefiting them in many ways they started sponsoring the movement to keep the status quo.
> So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
This is a fallacy. This is the same problem as with unpaid internships - you could say if you can't do unpaid internship, you can find company that will pay for your time, but why would companies do that if they can get free labour? This creates disadvantage for people from unprivileged backgrounds as they cannot afford to gain experience through unpaid internship as they have bills to pay and families to feed. That's why in many countries unpaid internships are illegal.
I am not surprised that this idea gets pushed back here, as there is too many people here who wouldn't like coporations they work for to finally start paying.
I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other.
But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations.
Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.
So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.